olivier section 3.10 of <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-01>
3.10. Deployability Since solutions that are not deployable are simply academic exercises, solutions are required to be deployable from a technical perspective. Furthermore, given the extensive deployed base of today's Internet, a solution is required to be incrementally deployable. --> i would state that the solution should not be constrained by which system (host vs network) will require changes/updates (it may be both at the end) as long as fulfilling the incremental deployability design goal. the real question is: incremental does not necessarily mean impact free even if a solution initially targets only host or network updates - which is the open question faced with LISP thanks, -dimitri. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Olivier Bonaventure > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:51 PM > To: Randall Atkinson > Cc: 'Routing Research Group' > Subject: Re: [RRG] Are host-stack modifications allowed or > disallowed ? > > Randall, > > > % 1) If you put Loc/ID functionality in hosts, then they > > % will have to change. Don't want to do this because > > % it kills deployability. > > > > This question, for which Dino's view is expressed above, > > is actually pretty central to the discussions here. > > > > > > A) Some folks on this list (e.g. Dino) believe that the Routing RG > > cannot select an approach requiring any host stack changes > > -- because that necessarily precludes deployment. > > > > B) Other folks on this list (e.g. Jari) believe that the Routing RG > > can select an approach requiring host stack changes because > > that is done by the IETF in the ordinary course of IETF work. > > I personally think that the architecture should not preclude on which > kind of systems it will be deployed. Some environments will want > router-based solutions (e.g. corporate networks), others will prefer > host based solutions (e.g. home environments). The > architecture that RRG > will develop should be deployable on both hosts and routers. > > Concerning the ease of deployment of new features, ten years > ago routers > were easier to upgrade than hosts, but nowadays most hosts > are patched > every month or so and thus deploying a new feature on a large > number of > hosts is not difficult. I'm not aware of any router vendor providing > automatic upgrades of its OS. > > > Olivier > > > -- > http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be , Universite catholique de Louvain, Belgium > > -- > to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the > word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. > archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg > -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
